On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:22 AM, John Milstone <john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com>wrote:
There are at least 9 or 10 problems with the report: > In order to appreciate the report as being potentially interesting, one must assume good faith on the part of Rossi. If one assumes fraud or the likelihood of fraud, we are led down the path of the issues you raise. That gets to the purpose of the test and of the testers -- one presumes the test was not intended to sway people who assume bad faith on the part of Rossi. If it was intended for that, it is clear that it would have been quite ineffective. Instead, the test conducted under conditions that would not be sufficient to sway skeptics by a team that were funded by ELFORSK, a Swedish power research consortium. The credentials of the team were sufficient for ELFORSK, and ELFORSK also did not see the need to assume bad faith on the part of Rossi. I think many people are willing to extent him a similar benefit of the doubt, until such generosity becomes untenable. > The only temperature measurements were of the OUTSIDE of the furnace which > contained both the E-Cat and the conventional electric heaters, leaving no > way to directly determine how much heat each was providing. > Sometimes you can't separate input coming into the system from generated heat, so you use calorimetry to measure the input and then subtract it from the power out. This particular point is only an issue for those who assume bad faith or the likelihood of bad faith on Rossi's part. Eric
